Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Per nom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 19:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Per nom

This phrase appears to entirely internal to wikipedia, and is of no interest to the outside world (WP:NSR). Also a dictionary definition with no potential to become encylopedic. Kappa 09:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete....per nom... — TheKMantalk 09:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per article's title. —Brim 09:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as it seems not even our favorite resident inclusionist can justify it :) (ESkog)(Talk) 10:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ...per nom well actually, as dictdef... Segv11 (talk/contribs) 10:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, you know why Sceptre (Talk) 11:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki If it's a dictionary definition move it to Wikidictionary ComputerJoe 14:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Rob 15:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh oh, Rob, if it gets deleted your reason for voting to delete will be a red link and it won't count. Endomion 16:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to Wikipedia:Per nom ... per nom. This is great per nom. --Cyde Weys votetalk 16:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki or Move to Wikipedia:per nom used heavily around here and it would be nice if people understood the jargon so that they can het involved. --Pboyd04 16:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge per Pboyd04 - FrancisTyers 17:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • This is in the wrong namespace, and should be in the Guide or the Glossary. A merger would leave a cross-namespace redirect behind, and there's little of substance to merge anyway. Delete. Uncle G 17:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I've gone ahead and added 'per nom' to Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Shorthands. --Quarl 22:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • DPN. BD2412 T 22:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Why not just redirect to the guide? I had trouble finding it on the site when I ran a search for the term. ArgentiumOutlaw 23:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, I personally think this obscure phrase should be banned from Wikipedia as a form of duckspeak, but in any case we already have an AfD glossary. Gazpacho 00:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to Wikipedia:Per nom. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 01:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Takes all of a minute to understand what it means anyway. - Liontamer 22:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Understanding what it means and finding the location of that information are two completely different things.ArgentiumOutlaw 23:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, ironic huh. Incognito 06:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • We should probably discuss the problem at hand rather than having everyone simply vote to merge or delete, because that will ignore what I was trying to do in creating this page. Does anyone have an actual solution to my original problem, which was that I couldn't directly find 'per nom', a common slang with no definition. A simple entry or redirect of some kind will actually help people. So if we just delete this page, we will be causing people some unnecessary searching of common information. ArgentiumOutlaw 07:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Per_nom_72ec.html"